If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Washington DC is apparently considering requiring a 24 hour waiting period before obtaining a tattoo. From the FNN story:

The days of waking up with a hangover and a mysterious tattoo may be numbered in Washington D.C., thanks to a new regulation being proposed by the cityís Department of Health. The cityís Department of Health proposed 65 pages of regulations for tattoo parlors on Friday. One states that a tattoo artist cannot apply a tattoo until at least 24 hours after a customer requests it. The language for body piercings is similar.

Yet, it is considered by many pro choicers the height of tyranny to require an equivalent wait for an abortion. Which is the more serious procedure? Apparently, tattooing.

Children will also be protected from tattooing:

The regulations would also prohibit the tattooing of anyone under the age of 18.

That wouldnít even permit tattooing with parental consent

Yet in many states, the opposite is true. Indeed, in California where I live, parents donít have to consent for a child to obtain an abortion. Worse, they donít even have to be told.

In neither case is it appropriate. Adults can make their own decisions even if we don't happen to approve of them.
Abortion is very sad, but I don't stand in the way of someone who makes that decision for herself. Tattoos are ugly, but I would not try to prevent someone from getting one.

"Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken

In neither case is it appropriate. Adults can make their own decisions even if we don't happen to approve of them.
Abortion is very sad, but I don't stand in the way of someone who makes that decision for herself. Tattoos are ugly, but I would not try to prevent someone from getting one.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute's breakdown of abortion restrictions by state shows that DC has almost no restrictions on abortion. Of the following laws, only one affects DC residents:

Must be performed by a licensed physician

Must be performed in a hospital under specific conditions (viability, for example)

Second physician must participate under specific conditions (viability, for example)

Prohibited except in cases of life or health endangerment

”Partial birth” abortion banned

Public funding of abortion private insurance coverage limited

Funds all or most medically necessary abortions

Funds limited to life endangerment, rape and incest

Private insurance coverage limited

So, what you have is an incredibly permissive environment on abortion, but a restrictive environment on tattoos, not to mention guns (DC's ban was overturned by the courts but the City Council has yet to draft new legislation), cigarettes or alcohol. In NYC under Bloomberg, it would have been harder to buy a 64 ounce Coke or a pack of cigarettes than it would have been to get an abortion if the courts hadn't thrown out his soda ban.

I do believe in parental notification in the case of a minor (for anything that could be life changing - abortions, or piercings, or tattoos). Those who say that abortion should be left to the states have to realize that some are going to be much more permissive than others.

"Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken

I do believe in parental notification in the case of a minor (for anything that could be life changing - abortions, or piercings, or tattoos). Those who say that abortion should be left to the states have to realize that some are going to be much more permissive than others.

Understood. The biggest issue with Roe V. Wade is not that it legalized abortion, but that it created the precedent that the court could create whole new sets of law. The court's reasoning, which was derived from "penumbras of emanations" of rights (rather than the actual text of the Constitution), created a series of rules that the states had to comply with in order to regulate something which had previously been within their authority. Since then, almost every controversial state issue has been kicked up to the federal courts for review, to include amendments to state constitutions. The consequence of this is that we no longer govern ourselves, but are dictated to by the courts. One recent example of this was when the courts upheld Obamacare as a tax, rather than as a regulation of interstate commerce, despite the fact that revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which Obamacare most certainly did not. Another is the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution of the State of California to overturn Prop 8.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

You can cover a tattoo with a shirt or make-up. You can have a tattoo removed.

Yes, I agree, but under the proposed legislation, a minor in DC will not be able to get a tattoo, with or without parental consent, and an adult will have a waiting period of 24 hours between ordering the tattoo and its execution, which means that under the proposed law, tattoos will be more regulated than abortions. Given that you can't cover a pregnancy with a shirt or or make-up and you can't put a fetus back into the womb, you tell me which procedure has more far-reaching effects.

Understood. The biggest issue with Roe V. Wade is not that it legalized abortion, but that it created the precedent that the court could create whole new sets of law. The court's reasoning, which was derived from "penumbras of emanations" of rights (rather than the actual text of the Constitution), created a series of rules that the states had to comply with in order to regulate something which had previously been within their authority. Since then, almost every controversial state issue has been kicked up to the federal courts for review, to include amendments to state constitutions. The consequence of this is that we no longer govern ourselves, but are dictated to by the courts. One recent example of this was when the courts upheld Obamacare as a tax, rather than as a regulation of interstate commerce, despite the fact that revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which Obamacare most certainly did not. Another is the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution of the State of California to overturn Prop 8.

Yes, I agree, but under the proposed legislation, a minor in DC will not be able to get a tattoo, with or without parental consent, and an adult will have a waiting period of 24 hours between ordering the tattoo and its execution, which means that under the proposed law, tattoos will be more regulated than abortions. Given that you can't cover a pregnancy with a shirt or or make-up and you can't put a fetus back into the womb, you tell me which procedure has more far-reaching effects.

Getting a tattoo is something people often do while intoxicated. Abortions not so much.